Civil discourse on gun control

[Slartibartfast]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

By that argument Kim Jong Un's nukes and missiles are nothing to worry about as they don't kill people.

There are certain stock phrases created by the NRA which are logically fallacious and designed to irritate. This exacerbates a 'them vs us' type hostility between Americans.

ARs are too much gun for civilians IMO and should at least be over 25 only as a minimum age for ownership and advertising for them blocked in a manner similar to cigarettes. This would mean when you see an unstable 19 year old posting his guns online, he can be tackled while not overly infringing on responsible citizens.

If you want an AR before 25, join the army and get trained.

 

[Spike Trader]

I support the right to personal owned firearms, provided a clear background check has been made on the individual owning the weapon. I support banning ex-convicts, people with mental disorders, people who have been convicted of spousal abuse, those under 21 (even though the law is 18 in many states for long guns). Those are my positions.

That's all what Obama was ever asking , but the NRA and Fox News had other ideas , including people on this board.

 

[futurecurrents]

In my opinion......

Most types of guns should be banned.

Limited capacity internal magazine long guns only. No hand guns no AR15 etc.

If one can't defend their home and hunt with one of those.......too bad, you can. What you can't do with them is kill many people very quickly.


Retains 2nd amendment rights and limits lethality. As the LA shooter showed, there are crazies that will still pass all mental tests. The only way to limit the carnage is reduce lethality.

 

[Spike Trader]

Trump repeals Obama-era regulation.


In February 2017, President Trump repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have made it easier to block the sale of firearms to people with certain mental illnesses.

In the wake of a horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead in February 2018, media renewed focus on an Obama-era regulation repealed in the early months of the Trump administration. That rule would have given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used for gun sales, access to Social Security Administration data including the names of individuals receiving certain federal mental health benefits.

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code. However, according to the Associated Press:

The rule was rescinded using a legal procedure called the the Congressional Review Act, which, prior to the Trump Administration, was obscure and little-used. It allows regulations passed in the final days of one administration to be rescinded with a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress during the first 60 days of a new administration. The Senate sent their repeal of the Obama-era measure for Trump’s signature on 15 February 2017 — a year and a day before the Parkland shooting — and Trump signed it into law the next week, on 28 February 2017.

While the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, it is true that Trump signed into law the repeal of a measure that would have plausibly prevented certain classes of mentally ill people from purchasing firearms by allowing a new data source to be included the system that runs those background checks. As such we rank the claim mostly true.

 

[Tom B]

Trump repeals Obama-era regulation.


In February 2017, President Trump repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have made it easier to block the sale of firearms to people with certain mental illnesses.

In the wake of a horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead in February 2018, media renewed focus on an Obama-era regulation repealed in the early months of the Trump administration. That rule would have given the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used for gun sales, access to Social Security Administration data including the names of individuals receiving certain federal mental health benefits.

As we explained in a 17 February 2017 post, this rule — which never went into effect before being rescinded — did not change any existing laws regulating who is allowed to purchase guns. It merely would have provided a new way to enforce existing restrictions on gun sales by allowing a transfer of information from one agency to another. There are now, and have been for some time, laws that seek to limit gun sales to anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” per Title 18 section 922(g) of the United States Code. However, according to the Associated Press:

The rule was rescinded using a legal procedure called the the Congressional Review Act, which, prior to the Trump Administration, was obscure and little-used. It allows regulations passed in the final days of one administration to be rescinded with a simple majority vote in both chambers of Congress during the first 60 days of a new administration. The Senate sent their repeal of the Obama-era measure for Trump’s signature on 15 February 2017 — a year and a day before the Parkland shooting — and Trump signed it into law the next week, on 28 February 2017.

While the law did not change who is required to be the subject of background checks, it is true that Trump signed into law the repeal of a measure that would have plausibly prevented certain classes of mentally ill people from purchasing firearms by allowing a new data source to be included the system that runs those background checks. As such we rank the claim mostly true.

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns
Shooting revives deliberately misleading talking points about a bad regulation both the NRA and the ACLU opposed.

Scott Shackford|Feb. 15, 2018 1:15 pm

In the wake of yesterday's deadly school shooting in Florida, President Donald Trump tweeted that there were signs that alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz was "mentally disturbed." Trump encouraged people to report bad behavior to authorities.

In response, a Twitter and media parade of people spouted misleading claims about an Obama-era regulation that Trump and Congress rolled back.

None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.

That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.

It was hackery then, and it is still hackery today. It's shameful to ignore the serious constitutional problems of this poorly conceived rule just to sow panic and implicate one's political opponents.

Photo Credit: tMIKE THEILER/UPI/Newscom




Scott Shackford is an associate editor at Reason.com

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

 

[RedDuke]

I think I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of gun ownership on the forum, but I also don't think I'm a mindless supporter. I will state my position here:

I support the right to personal owned firearms, provided a clear background check has been made on the individual owning the weapon. I support banning ex-convicts, people with mental disorders, people who have been convicted of spousal abuse, those under 21 (even though the law is 18 in many states for long guns). Those are my positions.

In this thread, I would ask that previous arguments and prejudices are left at the door. I will agree to do the same, and I will happily debate anyone here on what solutions are possible and what ones are not, if anyone is willing to step up to the plate and try for the other side of the argument.

Insults, snarky comments, and the inability to remain civil will mean you forfeit your position. If I do the same, I forfeit my position as well.

State what you believe and go into what you suggest would bring a notable difference to the country.

Very well said, and as a fellow gun owner (NYC) agree with every word!!!!!!!

If above is implemented, this is a max of what we can do.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

So, because we need to do more to protect kids in schools, everyone here agrees that we need to empower- but not require- more teachers to conceal carry? Right?

Oh, I see. The goal is not to save kids, it is just to get rid of guns. Nevermind.
Not so sure you would feel that way when you and your teacher are huddled in the room and a shooter enters. It is thoughtful and appropriate to eulogize a teacher/football coach who stops bullets and dies protecting kids. Be even better if he "neutralized" the shooter forthwith.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

I believe that some people become desensitized to violence after being exposed to it for years through T.V., movies, and video games. When a child does not receive proper supervision, perhaps because a working single parent uses a T.V. as a babysitter, he has to be more likely to be maladjusted. Perhaps an triggering event needs to happen before this child decides to kill.

The FBI has an extensive database on serial killers. I’m sure these school shootings have been analyzed and a profile of these killers has been at least partially developed.

If we use this information and work backwards, maybe we can see the steps a child takes on his way to becoming a killer. With insights into possible triggering evenrs, family staus, warning signs, and teacher training it might be possible to intervene before, maybe well before an at risk child starts down his final path. An effective early intervention may not even have to be very intrusive.

Should a teacher recognize established signs that a child may be at risk, a school administrator could be contacted and a meeting be held to estimate the seriousness of the signs and appropiate action, if any to take.

 

[elderado]

I believe that some people become desensitized to violence after being exposed to it for years through T.V., movies, and video games. When a child does not receive proper supervision, perhaps because a working single parent uses a T.V. as a babysitter, he has to be more likely to be maladjusted. Perhaps an triggering event needs to happen before this child decides to kill.

The FBI has an extensive database on serial killers. I’m sure these school shootings have been analyzed and a profile of these killers has been at least partially developed.

If we use this information and work backwards, maybe we can see the steps a child takes on his way to becoming a killer. With insights into possible triggering evenrs, family staus, warning signs, and teacher training it might be possible to intervene before, maybe well before an at risk child starts down his final path. An effective early intervention may not even have to be very intrusive.

Should a teacher recognize established signs that a child may be at risk, a school administrator could be contacted and a meeting be held to estimate the seriousness of the signs and appropiate action, if any to take.

You are assuming everyone is on board with the same program.

A school principal was attacked and bitten by an autistic student. Yes, broke the skin with his teeth. Hospitalization, tetanus shot, the whole nine yards. Parents of student deny he is autistic and want him mainstreamed. It doesn't matter that his teacher can't focus on the class (because of his constant interruptions), and the district has two (yes 2!) adults assigned to be with him in the classroom, along with a monitor to monitor the teacher's interaction with the autistic child.

What sounds good on paper isn't always the case.

Oh, and this kid is in 3rd grade.

 

[DTB2]

You are assuming everyone is on board with the same program.

A school principal was attacked and bitten by an autistic student. Yes, broke the skin with his teeth. Hospitalization, tetanus shot, the whole nine yards. Parents of student deny he is autistic and want him mainstreamed. It doesn't matter that his teacher can't focus on the class (because of his constant interruptions), and the district has two (yes 2!) adults assigned to be with him in the classroom, along with a monitor to monitor the teacher's interaction with the autistic child.

What sounds good on paper isn't always the case.

Oh, and this kid is in 3rd grade.

Don't care. The parents are helping nobody with that line of thought. Move the child where A. he isn't a danger and B. where he isn't negatively impacting the 20 other students.

Simple. Just need the guts to do it.